European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 73 · 2,185 total
Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent
ORDER
Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerns EP 3 777 595 B1 and addresses whether the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP), and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR) should be disregarded for lacking an electronic signature under Rule 4.1 RoP. The Court granted a retroactive extension of time to 13 July 2026, when the Claimant submitted signed versions of these documents, while preserving the original filing date of 4 May 2026.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
ORDER
Siemens Healthineers AG and Others v.Hologic, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Siemens Healthineers AG and related entities for suspensive effect of their appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf, which had found infringement of EP 2 352 431 and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for revocation. The appellants argued that the impugned decision contained manifest errors in interpreting claim feature 4.1 and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal held that no manifest error or infringement of fundamental procedural rights had been demonstrated on summary examination, and therefore rejected the application for suspensive effect in its entirety.
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produktie S.A., and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. Valeo sought to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain APX-series products and by narrowing the territorial scope to exclude Belgium and Germany for certain defendants, and to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Produktie). The Judge-Rapporteur granted all of Valeo's requests, finding that the unconditional limitations must be allowed under Rule 263 RoP, that the territorial changes constituted permissible limitations rather than withdrawals, and that Bosch Produktie had no legitimate interest to oppose the withdrawal since the counterclaim for revocation would have erga omnes effect if successful.
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
Procedural Order
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) sought protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but denied protection for customer names and customer information, which were found to be publicly available.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns Brita SE's application for renewed coercive monetary penalties against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order of the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1. The defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure about infringing water filter cartridge devices and had continued advertising the infringing products online. The court imposed additional fines totaling 202,500 EUR and threatened further escalating daily penalties of 2,000 EUR for any continued non-compliance.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses disputes over court fees payable on five related appeals arising from infringement and counterclaim-for-revocation proceedings between Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court dismissed Qualcomm's request for reimbursement of overpaid fees in one appeal and ordered NST to pay outstanding fees in three other appeals where NST had underpaid by unilaterally halving the value of the action. The court held that fees must be calculated based on the value determined by the Court of First Instance, and parties cannot unilaterally amend that value for fee purposes.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G
ORDER
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. v.& Bird
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Piso 0, 2740-267 Porto Salvo, Portu
DECISION
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
DECISION
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent
DECISION
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of deadlines for filing statements of defence. Cardo Systems had filed an infringement action against Ziwu and Resosport, but while service on Ziwu was completed, service on Resosport in Hong Kong remained pending. Ziwu applied to align the deadlines, and the Court granted the request, setting a common starting date of 10 June 2026 for both defendants, with a new filing deadline of 10 September 2026.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
Ordonnance
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – Israel v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
DECISION
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance (Milan Central Division) addressed a cost decision following revocation proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS). Gilead Sciences, Inc., as the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal. The Court rejected AMMS's requests for a stay and for payment by instalments, ordering AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks of service.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC,, Wilmington, Delaware, USA v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Decision
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A.
order
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This is a procedural order of the UPC Local Division The Hague concerning a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026. The panel reviewed whether a counterclaim for rate-setting filed by the Acer defendants against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. (which had intervened in support of claimant Dolby International AB) should be declared inadmissible. The panel denied the review, confirming the counterclaim against Vectis is admissible, and alternatively added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby, while granting leave to appeal.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute and University-Industry Cooperation Foundation of Korea Aerospace University v.Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others
Procedural order of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court staying proceedings in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. The parties, comprising ETRI and Korea Aerospace University as claimants and multiple Meta entities as defendants, jointly requested a stay because they had reached an amicable solution in out-of-court negotiations requiring further implementation. The Court granted the stay and ordered the parties to either withdraw their actions or update the Court by 10 August 2026.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This procedural order of the Unified Patent Court's Local Division The Hague concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 that accepted a counterclaim for rate-setting against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. The panel denied the review sought by claimant Dolby and intervener Vectis, holding that under R. 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may be subject to a counterclaim. The court further added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby in the alternative, and granted leave to appeal.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the court fees payable for AIM's appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division disposing of a provisional measures application. The Court held that the appeal fee of EUR 20,400 paid by AIM was both necessary and sufficient, classifying the appeal as one under R. 220.1(a) RoP pursuant to R. 363.2 RoP. AIM was also invited to clarify why Respondent 6 (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) was included in the appeal proceedings concerning the PI case.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 v.Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier
ORDER
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.